A Birther Recants

The Hawaii Reporter ^ | 2 Nov 2011 | Professor Skidmore

[Squeeky]

Well, my BFF Fabia Sheen, Esq., a lawyer also convinced a Vattle Birther that he was wrong, and got it on film!

Making Swiss Cheese of Vattel

[Ramius]

[chuckle] Not bad.

[DiogenesLamp]

I believe that the Courts will all be on my side.

So, who is the fool?

Obviously anyone on your side.

You are wasting valuable time and resources on this stuff. I think there is much we can do to embarrass Obama, as Obama has been so private about his past and the public really does not know anything about Obama’s past.

It is my time to waste. As far as I'm concerned, there is nothing more important (regarding Obama) than depriving that bastard of legitimacy in subsequent history.

But to think we can toss him out of office on these Citizenship grounds will go no where!

That ship has sailed. At this point it is obvious to all that he will not be removed for any reason regarding his legitimacy. To do so would be to admit to the world that our Voters, our State Governments, our Electoral college, our Senators, our Representatives, and Yes, our Courts, are brain dead stupid. THEY will not countenance it. They would rather suffer the damage to the nation than to admit they were wrong, or worse, IGNORANT.

They are like General Custer in the movie "Little Big man."

" Your miserable life is not worth the reversal of a Custer decision."

[SoJoCo]

Natural Born Citizen is one who is born in the country to parents who are themselves citizens.

Then I guess we were screwed no matter who won in 2008?

[exit82]

I don’t meet the definition of either of your two classifications of citizens. Yet I am an American citizen.

First of all, the 14th Amendment did not change in any way what a natural born citizen is. Neither the 14th Amendment, nor any law of Congress can change what the Founders meant by “natural born citizen” in the Constitution. The Founders had Vattel at the Constitutional Convention, of that there is no doubt. They also REQUESTED a copy of the same be procured for their deliberations.The Supreme Court in Minor had the 14th Amendment available to them, as it was ratified six years before, in 1868. You had your history wrong.

Natural Born was understood at the time, both in 1787 and in 1874, to mean born in the country of two citizen parents.

No law has changed that.

There are three groups of citizens.

1. Natural born—born of two American citizen parents.

2. Native citizen—born with one American citizen parent.

3. Naturalized citizen—you are made a citizen by an act of the government called naturalization.

Numbers 2 and 3 cannot be President or Vice President of the United States. They can be Senators or Congressmen.
Why? Because to be President or Vice President you cannot be born to a loyalty other than American. That means at the moment of birth.There is no doubt that this was the intention of the Founders at the Constitutional Convention, as the Article was re-written to include the phrase “natural born” to allay that fear of divided loyalty for the Commander in Chief.

At the moment of birth, you are one of the three types mentioned above. There are no other possibilities.

My father was an American citizen, born here;my mother was not when I was born.She was born in a different country and a citizen of that country.

She became a naturalized citizen when I was 13. That made me “native born” as I was born here. My mother and I are both citizens, but we are not the same type of citizen. I was not naturalized by an act of the government whereas she was.

My son was born to two American parents in America. That makes him not only a citizen, but a natural born citizen.

My son can be President or Vice President. I cannot, nor could my mother. All three of us though,could be Senators or Congressmen, as we are all citizens.

A “citizen” and a “natural born citizen” are not one and the same in all cases.

A “native” citizen and a “natural born citizen” are not the same.

Neither “natural born citizen” nor a “native citizen” can be a “naturalized citizen”.

Natural born citizen is a phrase with a legal and a historical context. Overlaying that, it has a Constitutional context, which places it above any law written and passed by Congress, because Congress alone cannot amend the Constitution in any way.

The question of where Obama was born is irreleavnt IF he was indeed born in Hawaii.The fact that Obama was born with divided loyalty is not in question, and thus, he is ineligible to be President of the United States, as one parent was not American at the time he was born.If it is found that he was born outside of the United States, that is just an additional reason for why he should be removed from office.

[AmericanVictory]

The authority which I have cited is directly to the contrary. In fact there is no authority to support your position. It really is astonishing that you consider yourself more of an authority than those I have cited. Do you really think you are more of an authority than Chief Justice John Marshall?

[Kansas58]

You have posted NOTHING but names.
You have not posted the actual opinions as they don't really support your case very well.

There are ONLY two catagories of citizen:

Natural born

Logic supports my position. Logic defeats your position. And those who became citizens after they were born!

[Kansas58]

Should have said:

There are only two categories of Citizen

Natural Born

Those who became citizens after they were born: NATURALIZED

Logic supports my position.

Logic defeats your position.

Print the ACTUAL opinions you have relied upon. They do not help your case much.

[morphing libertarian]

Don’t we need a supreme court decision to answer this question and aren’t they avoiding the issue? So we can argue this for years and there will be no definitive answer. It needs to hit the court now to get an answer before the next election.

[AmericanVictory]

Here is what Chief Justice John Marshall said in his concurring opinion in The Venus in 1814, in which he was joined by Mr. Justice Livingston:

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says

"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."

His quoting directly from Vattel and using the word "indigenes" to signify the natural born citizen, the word being cognate with the French exactly, would seem to make your assertions completely incorrect.

St. George Tucker, in his notes to his American edition of Blackstone, which notes are at the end, asserts quite definitely that the phrase "natural born citizen" in Article II was taken from Vattel's definition and not from the English common law. Tucker was the foremost authority of that day on the common law and Blackstone and, moreover, was friends with the Framers, having married the widowed mother of John Randolph of Roanoke and having taught natural law and philosophy as well as common law at William and Mary after having fought extensively in the Revolution. You can find Tucker's Blackstone, with its ending notes on variations between the Constitution and English common law on line. So you see he is a bit more of an authority than yourself as, of course, are both Marshall and Livingston.

But then, you are clearly determined to persist in your ignorance, or in promoting false history in order to serve someone who wishes to suppress and ridicule the truth of the matter. So you will clearly ignore being shown the authority you falsely asserted did not exist.

[edge919]

“Naturalization” can only occur AFTER you are born.

This source disagrees.:

But in Rogers v. Bellei,1259 the Court refused to extend this holding to persons statutorily naturalized at birth abroad because one of their parents was a citizen and similarly refused to apply Schneider.

link

[DiogenesLamp]

You have posted NOTHING but names.

Then I shall cite the opinion, which of course will do no good whatsoever, because YOU are unreachable with any fact or reasoning. But what the H3ll.

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

Supreme Court Justice Washington:
"1. The writers upon the law of nations distinguish between a temporary residence in a foreign country for a special purpose and a residence accompanied with an intention to make it a permanent place of abode. The latter is styled by Vattel "domicile," which he defines to be, "a habitation fixed in any place, with an intention of always staying there." Such a person, says this author, becomes a member of the new society, at least as a permanent inhabitant, and is a kind of citizen of an inferior order from the native citizens, but is nevertheless united and subject to the society without participating in all its advantages. This right of domicile, he continues, is not established unless the person makes sufficiently known his intention of fixing there, either tacitly or by an express declaration. Vatt. 92-93. Grotius nowhere uses the word "domicile," but he also distinguishes between those who stay in a foreign country by the necessity of their affairs or from any other temporary cause and those who reside there from a permanent cause. The former he denominates "strangers" and the latter "subjects," and it will presently be seen by a reference to the same author what different consequences these two characters draw after them.

Chief Justice Marshall:
The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says

"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."

"The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the laws or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united and subject to the society, without participating in all its advantages."

"The domicile is the habitation fixed in any place with an intention of always staying there. A man does not, then, establish his domicile in any place unless he makes sufficiently known his intention of fixing there, either tacitly or by an express declaration. However, this declaration is no reason why, if he afterwards changes his mind, he may not remove his domicile elsewhere. In this sense, he who stops, even for a long time, in a place for the management of his affairs has only a simple habitation there, but has no domicile."

A domicile, then, in the sense in which this term is used by Vattel, requires not only actual residence in a foreign country, but "an intention of always staying there." Actual residence without this intention amounts to no more than "simple habitation."

_____________________________________________________________

Logic supports my position. Logic defeats your position. And those who became citizens after they were born!

You do not have even a passing relationship with logic. Logic would dictate that you learn what you are talking about before opining in your ignorance. This is an example of the SUPREME COURT citing VATTEL on citizenship. It is not just ANY Supreme court, it is the one with Chief Justice Marshall, who was a contemporary of the founders, and knows more about what he is talking about than any subsequent court or other authority.

Given your past efforts at reasoning, I doubt you can even read the whole thing, let alone understand the words... but there it is.

[DiogenesLamp]

[chuckle] Not bad.

Yes, it is an "xtranormal" example of the straw man fallacy carried out to extremes by a compulsive obsessive. The silly child uses cartoons because a rational argument is beyond her ability.

[Kansas58]

Well, that person “naturalized at birth” was a citizen at birth.
You make a distinction without a difference.

My point on this note is only that Congress can not make someone who was not a “citizen at birth” RETROACTIVELY a citizen at birth.

You either are or you are not, at that moment.

[DiogenesLamp]

If you defeated George Tiller in Court, then you are likely pro-life. If you are pro-life, why are you using the liberal argument for abortion as YOUR argument for citizenship?

Liberals argue that a child is not a "person" until it is born. Conservatives argue that a child is a person by the fact of it's existence.

The Argument that being "born" makes you a citizen, is the argument that being "born" makes you a "person."

The Argument that Life is inherent in the existence of an unborn child is the argument that a child's citizenship is inherent as well.

The belief that a child isn't a citizen until it is "born" in a specific place, is using an artificial man made boundary to determine it's legal status. The Conservative argument is that all characteristics are inherent in it's nature. It is a "person" and has the characteristics of a human because it inherited them from it's mother and father. It likewise has the characteristics of a citizen because it inherited them from its mother and father, not because it was "born". It was the same before birth as it was after birth. "Birth" did not change the nature of the child.

This is what the founders meant when they said "natural born"; That it's characteristics are inherent in it's nature.
..

If you are pro-life then you should believe that natural citizenship exists by right of blood, not by right of soil. Soil represents death, blood represents life.

[Squeeky]

Well, using your silly logic I guess we are denying "personhood" to people by not letting them vote until they are 18 years old, or drink liquor legally until they are 21. I think you are just using abortion as a wild goose chase to distract away from the argument. Which, I just did a very good Internet Article on Wild Goose Chases which is what the Justiagate stuff is too:

Justiagate: The Mother of All Wild Goose Chases

Plus how did you like the Fabia Sheen, Esq. video earlier in the thread???

[DiogenesLamp]

Well, using your silly logic I guess we are denying "personhood" to people by not letting them vote until they are 18 years old, or drink liquor legally until they are 21.

This is why I can't stand talking to you. You are one of the most ignorant, yet mouthy persons I have ever encountered. (and seemingly unable to learn) Here you are spouting your law crap, and you aren't even aware of the HOLDING in Minor v Happersett? (Which has only been discussed a bazillion times.) Your very own precious Supreme Court ruled that voting (and by the same logic, the other stuff you mentioned) is not an attribute of citizenship.

---

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
88 U.S. 162
Minor v. Happersett
Argued: February 9, 1875 --- Decided: March 29, 1875

1. The word "citizen" is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation.

2. In that sense, women, of born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution as since.

3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had.

4. At the time of the adoption of that amendment, suffrage was not coextensive with the citizenship of the States; nor was it at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.

5. Neither the Constitution nor the fourteenth amendment made all citizens voters.

6. A provision in a State constitution which confines the right of voting to "male citizens of the United States," is no violation of the Federal Constitution. In such a State women have no right to vote.

---

Get your BFF Fabian Sheen to explain this post to you. You will undoubtedly not be able to fathom it otherwise.

[Squeeky]

You said: Get your BFF Fabian Sheen to explain this post to you. You will undoubtedly not be able to fathom it otherwise.

Well, since you like Fabia Sheen, Esq., did you like her video, too??? Did it convince you to quit being a Vattle Birther???

Making Swiss Cheese of Vattel