Research Help: Spiro Agnew a Natural Born Citizen?

[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!!

[WhiskeyX]

I would be happy to do so, as so many times in the past. I have to wonder whether or not it is worth my time in doing so, given past experience with people obstinately arguing in effect that water is not wet, the sky is not blue when it is blue, and oral sex is not sex when it occurs in the West Wing of the White House with the POTUS. While the concepts can be easily and simply understood, the ability of people to resort to denials is infinite. My free time is especially limited right now, I'll be driving cross continent soon, so I don't want to waste my time on gainsayers out to broadcast a load of false propaganda rather than honestly debate the merits.

A starting point is to secure an acknowledgment that the common law in the British colonies in America and the Republic of the United States of America was never synonymous with British common law. American common law was derived in part from British common law, but American common law underwent a major divergence from British common law even while British common law underwent its own substantial changes and developments. If we cannot agree on this historical fact, there can be no common basis of agreement on all of the matters dependent upon this historical observation.

[sometime lurker]

You are mistaken - either you haven't read the quote, or are deliberately distorting it. Look at the debate that the quote came from. Mason is not talking about Great Britain reasserting power, he is talking about Article 2, section 2, clauses 2 and 3.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Here is a another statement of George Mason during the debate:

The President and Senate can make any treaty whatsoever. We wish not to refuse, but to guard, this power, as it is done in England. The empire there cannot be dismembered without the consent of the national Parliament. We wish an express and explicit declaration, in that paper, that the power which can make other treaties cannot, without the consent of the national Parliament--the national legislature--dismember the empire.

The entire debate is about Article 2, Section 2 and the process for treaties. How you get from that Mason saying he was concerned about holding off Britain is beyond me. If this is the level of reading comprehension, perhaps some of your other statements may be better understood as well.

[sometime lurker]

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

Your opinion, no evidence presented. Many authorities (including US court decisions) say they are synonymous. If you maintain the Founders said they are different, where's the proof?

[sometime lurker]

Go ahead and address the issues you raised above - that English common law actually supports Vattel on “natural born”. Your only statement so far is the obvious one that English and American common law diverged.

[Red Steel]

From the quote you gave me I didn't misquote anything.

This quote stands alone by itself.

"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.”

He is telling you and I that English Common law is not the same. He recognizes this fact as one with half a brain would too. It is you who wants to obfuscate all over the place.

If this is the level of reading comprehension, perhaps some of your other statements may be better understood as well.

It's fine but yours wears OBot glasses.

[Red Steel]

Your opinion, no evidence presented. Many authorities (including US court decisions) say they are synonymous. If you maintain the Founders said they are different, where's the proof?

That is the proof but you're too dimwitted to figure it out.

[Red Steel]

You --Your opinion, no evidence presented. Many authorities (including US court decisions) say they are synonymous.

Not my opinion, you can't read.

You said this,

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

And I said this,

"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 [Supreme Court of the US of A] 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. "

[Red Steel]

I would be happy to do so, as so many times in the past. I have to wonder whether or not it is worth my time in doing so, given past experience with people obstinately arguing in effect that water is not wet, the sky is not blue when it is blue, and oral sex is not sex when it occurs in the West Wing of the White House with the POTUS. While the concepts can be easily and simply understood, the ability of people to resort to denials is infinite.

The guy plays games like most OBots when confronted with 999999.99999% of damning evidence, and he will then hide in that 0.00001% of gray area of obscurity and say that's not enough. You're wrong.

[machogirl]

I would like to hear about his class also. I only read that one piece of “gossip” that fellow teachers thought he was lazy. I suppose if everything is handed to you without much work, you might tend to be lazy. This was the “gossip” that also included the University of Chicago was TOLD to hire him for his future resume enhancement. (politics). Judging by some of Barry’s behavior (lot’s of vacays and golf), IMHO the “gossip” may not just be “gossip”.

[WhiskeyX]

Go ahead and address the issues you raised above - that English common law actually supports Vattel on “natural born”. Your only statement so far is the obvious one that English and American common law diverged.

To myself and to you, the statement appears to be obvious. The same statement was vehemently and discourteously denied in another very recent thread. So, not taking anything for granted, I'm trying to proceed one step more or less at a time to identify the points which can be agreed upon or remain disputed.

Next, the American common law diverged significantly from English common law immediately upon the establishment of each English colony, each non-English colony, and their colonial governments. By the time of the Constitutional Convention and the adoption of the Constitution, American common law reflected its own native innovations and contributions from the English, Scots, Irish, French, Spanish, Dutch, German, Danish, and Swedish legal customs, with apologies for any neglected.

Meanwhile, the English common law had undergone significant changes before, during, and after the establishment of the North American colonies.

Likewise with the civil law/s of the other colonial powers, they too underwent significant changes before, during, and after the establishment of the North American colonies. The laws regarding citizenship were among those laws and customs which underwent the changes before, during, and after the establishment of the North American colonies.

[little jeremiah]

Plarmark.

[devistate one four]

I understand that the founders used the LAw of Nations by Vatell for thier guiding light in the formation of our republic.

After reading that, I came to that conclusion.
Nothing else makes sense.

[Plummz]

A subject is a not a citizen. Please stop posting lies.

[muawiyah]

Some of them probably did. A good number of others did their OWN analysis and looked directly to the Peace of Westphalia (a number of treaties ending the 30 years war and creating the modern nation state).

[sometime lurker]

You are making a basic logic mistake citing the Elg case as proof. Saying that someone born on American soil of two citizens is a natural born citizen does not mean that others in different circumstances are not natural born citizens, and no where in the Elg opinion does it support your conclusion.

Another poster has repeatedly posted many court cases that show the courts hold that born on American soil makes one natural born. You ignore those.

[sometime lurker]

I will distill it down to my understanding:
American common law diverged in some aspects from English common law (example: bills of attainder), but was similar or relied on English common law in many others. English common law changed some as the years went on.

We can agree on that.

[Red Steel]

You are making a basic logic mistake citing the Elg case as proof.

No, my logic is impeccable compared to yours. Elg was declared a natural born citizen in the 'holding' of the 1939 Supreme Court case. You know what "holding" means? It is the ruling of the court's opinion. Court opinions are broken down into 3 basic areas: facts (procedural history), law and legal principles, and holding (ruling).

Facts in the case.

Fact: Elg's parents were naturalized US citizens.

Fact: Marie Elg was born in the United States after her parents naturalized.

Fact: the Supreme Court in Perkins v. Elg that Marie Elg was held a natural born citizen of the United States in their ruling.

The very bottom line in the 1939 Supreme Court Opinion.

American soil of two citizens is a natural born citizen does not mean that others in different circumstances are not natural born citizens, and no where in the Elg opinion does it support your conclusion.

Fact: You will not find in any of the other Supreme Court cases where the persons at issue were called or declared "natural born citizens." None of them. It's not in 1898 Wong Kim Ark case or any other.

Dance on that pinhead... British law is not American law and is certainly not Natural Law. Again, the Natural Born Citizen clause in the US Constitution is referencing Natural Law.

Another poster has repeatedly posted many court cases that show the courts hold that born on American soil makes one natural born. You ignore those.

Ms. WKA, was referencing cases that cited British law about NBS, which is a statute or regulation, as in man-made, and none of them are from the US Supreme Court.

[sometime lurker]

The holding was that Elg was natural born. Nowhere in that holding did it exclude those born on American soil as not natural born. Where is your supreme court case finding that those born on American soil with only one (or no) citizen parents were not natural born citizens? Where is your official definition by the courts that “natural born” and “native born” and “citizen at birth” are not synonyms?

Several cases have been posting saying that those born on American soil are natural born, and no Supreme Court case that says otherwise.

[Gondring]

I only read that one piece of “gossip” that fellow teachers thought he was lazy.

Yeah, and I think it's telling that you don't see profiles of all the "highly successful students" of his. I'm guessing there's nothing demonstrating his supposed brilliance.

[machogirl]

We are told how brilliant “the One” is and are too accept this without question. If we do question, we are “racist”. He didn’t graduate from Columbia with honors of any kind.