Since you view the argument of ineligibility on the grounds of citizenship of zero's father as without merit Can you tell me why or what basis you are using to declare a father's citizenship without merit??
One more time, OK?
The level of sophistication here on the subject of how the Supreme Court decides Constitutional issues is pretty low. And that is one of the initial considerations in looking at this kind of question.
There is no controlling authority on the issue. The quotation from Minor v. Heppersett is simply what the court and the lawyers would describe as "dicta" (loose language from the court--the question of parentage was not at issue in the case so the holding doesn't address the parentage question).
In the case of Minor, that problem is particularly applicable. The issue of "natural born citizen" has only a single application in our law and that is to Article II of the Constitution and the qualification of a person to serve as President. But lawyers who are not looking at that technical question; many immigration lawyers; refer to the question of statutory citizenship of a person who becomes a citizen (in the case of birth outside the US for example) at birth and as a consequence of circumstances of birth, as "natural born" even though they are not looking at the Article II question. So in a citizenship case not addressing the Article II issue, the Court and the lawyers are going to see references to the term as being inapplicable to the case at hand.
There is no doubt that the founder's considered material from Law of Nations in framing the term "Natural Born Citizen" from the concept of "Natural Born Subject". Law of Nations is just another legal text and not authority and the Supreme Court has historically been spotty in terms of the weight, if any, it gives to legislative history.
If you are arguing a federal tax case, the history of the provision is very important because the court doesn't understand and has difficulty articulating explanations for complex tax provisions. But where you are looking for the answer to an issue which is essentially a simple political issue, where the guiding words and concepts are subject to interpretation, the Court will tell you what the answer is, often even in a case where the history of the issue is to the contrary.
And in the case at hand, although the fact that the founder's considered Law of Nations, the precise issue to be addressed is not all that clear. The best argument is that they too were addressing only the issue of place of birth and for the reasons I describe below.
There is also a strong view among the Constitutional Bar and the scholars that adoption of the 14th Amendment eliminated any quality of citizenship test other than place of birth with respect to person's born in the US. Yes, I understand that there are lots of arguments made here that should not be the case and while I agree with the policy arguments (personally I wouldn't come to that conclusion either, not only on this issue but on several others such as anchor babies) there is a relatively strong prevailing academic view to the contrary.
As to the dual citizenship question which might result from a parent who is a citizen of another country, a substantial part of the citizenry of the US are in that position. Under the law of many of the Euro Countries, citizenship extends to persons born outside the Country to the second generation. If you have a grandparent, or at least a grandfather who was a citizen of one of those countries, you are a citizen there whether you know it or not. We have had many many presidents who would have labored under that burden. The Court isn't going to apply a test of dual citizenship to exclude a candidate in that circumstance.
There is a strong reason to apply a different test to person's born outside the US. The state of the place of birth has absolute legal sovereignty over person's born under its authority. For example, US law makes all person's born here citizens, even if they are only here for a few minutes born passing through. And US law attaches to those citizens, just like all others, US Federal Income tax on all of their income throughout their life. So as late as sixty years later, a person born under those circumstances who returns to the US on business from the Country of his primary citizenship is faced with the Internal Revenue Service argument that he owes millions of dollars of back tax liabilities plus penalties and interest.
Historically, other countries had similar kinds of burdens. We don't want a person under that kind of constraint acting as Chief Executive of the United States.
The Constitutional Bar generally doesn't like the Natural Born test in Article II; it particularly doesn't like the test when the discussion would apply it to a Liberal candidate. And the bar, the professors, and the Courts, are predominantly politically very Liberal.
There is an excellent legal opinion published by the Congressional Research Service, which with a single exception, sets out the law as I have summarized it and as I would expect the Supreme Court of the United States to come down on the question if a case reaches the Court.
The author of the opinion comes down to the contrary on the question of birth outside the United States. My view of the probable outcome on those facts is based on substantive legal considerations the author of the opinion does not address and I would expect my view to prevail on those facts.
So in this political context, given the opportunity to apply a distinction based on place of birth outside the US for substantive reasons, the idea that the Court might hold a person born in the United States and elected President with a significant majority vote ineligible is just not realistic. It is just not going to happen--anyone with a contrary view is living in a dream world; or at a minimum hasn't argued or studied very many Constitutional Law cases.
And the argument has the further negative implication that it might obstruct consideration of an argument that could reach positive issues.
There is in fact admissible evidence of Zero's place of birth. He has gone around for years, telling people in a wide variety of settings that he was born in Kenya. Those statements are, what lawyers call evidence--admissions against interest. Affidavits to this affect were in a number of the court files of cases on the issue and Orly and other lawyers would have access to copies of those affidavits even if the court files in which they were originally filed have been sealed.
There is also still out there, a birth certificate showing the birth of Barack Hussein Obama, II in Kenya. No, not the Smith certificate; not showing a date of August 4, 1961 either.
Putting a case at issue on evidence would, at worst, put Zero in a position of responding on the merits to these issues.
“The level of sophistication here on the subject of how the Supreme Court decides Constitutional issues is pretty low.”
Oh Please. We more than get it. Constitutional law is their last priority. Whims, political correctness, graft, ego, corruption, obfuscation, contortions, twists, etc.
“Requiring two citizen parents leads to all sorts of absurdities. Some of these we brought up when Mark Hatfield was on RC Radio. What about children adopted from birth? Does the citizenship of the biological mother and father determine or the adopting parents? What about cases where the father is not known? Are those citizens eligible? In suppose in the same category would be in vitro fertilization with anonymous donors. Surrogate mothers? The list goes on and on. The paperwork showing naturalization dates for parents may be difficult to obtain. Birthers would rule them all ineligible.”
This is like the “When does life begin?” issue and the “Is using an IUD murder?” issue. SCOTUS seems to believe that right to life only begins in the third trimester. I'm not sure how that would apply to the NBC issue.
Until an actual NBC case on point is decided by SCOTUS on each of these issues, we will not know. Let's hope that they start with Obama's fact situation.
While the Bar may be liberal, five out of nine justices are not. Remember that second amendment gun rights were affirmed in a decision that “overturned a century of precedent decisions” in spite of the screams and derision of the liberal Bar!
“There is also still out there, a birth certificate showing the birth of Barack Hussein Obama, II in Kenya. No, not the Smith certificate; not showing a date of August 4, 1961 either.”
These are interesting claims you are making, and the first time that I have seen them. Why this alleged evidence would remain hidden while Obama ruins the country perplexes me. If this evidence is “sealed,” how is it that you are so confident that it exists and is genuine? Links please?
In the Founders time Natural and Kind had the same meaning.
When Shakespeare writes in Henry the V, “were all thy children kind and natural?” What do you think the poet means by natural children?
Does it mean children born from the same Kind? The same nationality? The same country?
My goal,don't know if its yours or not,is to make a case that zero is either ineligible to run due to his fathers heritage or his place of birth.
Over the last four years we have failed to do that.
One of the prime reasons we have failed to do that,once again IMHO, is that talk radio won't touch this topic with a ten foot pole.
Why?
We have not succeeded in simplifying the arguments enough that they can be discussed on talk radio.Any time you create a discussion that is over first or second year college level your audience starts dropping off.You are once again talking to yourself or a few close friends,not a way to win vital national arguments.
This is why Rush,Mark, Sean or few of the big talkers will not touch this topic.
I'm not going to complain about the truly heroic efforts done here on these eligiblity threads by those Freepers much smarter than me. Only repeat that we have failed to simplify the argument enough that we can get it on talk radio where millions would hear about how the regime has screwed us over once again and this argument would once again get the national attention it deserves.
Instead the regime is so confident our efforts will go nowhere zero does not even show up for his own trial.A huge slap in the face of all of us.
Even worse if we don't succeed pretty soon in lowering the level of discussion where everyone can be brought in to the topic they will do it all over again. The left will pick our candidate as the are doing now then emasculate him giving zero yet another victory.
We need to be able to say that zero is not eligible to run because of X,Y and Z not maybe this and maybe that and 75 paragraphs later still reach no conclusion.
Just my thoughts on the topic and I realize I am not in league with you guys who are probably law students, lawyers or whatever.
I just don't want to see zero get reelected.