Posted on 02/01/2012 7:17:02 PM PST by Sallyven
The U.S. Department of State disagrees with your assertion.
Foreign Affairs Manual
7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
a. It has never yeen determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.
d. (snip) In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.
A statutory natural born citizen may or may not be equivalent to a Constitutional natural born citizen. Until we get a ruling from the SCOTUS, there is only one group of citizens about which there are absolutely no doubts. The Constitutional natural born citizenship of every other group is up for debate.
A court can relieve a party from a default judgment for many reasons, the most common of which are mistakes, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect or irregularity in obtaining the default judgment. A court can also relieve a party from a default judgment if newly discovered evidence provides a defense to the underlying lawsuit or if the defendant was served by publication. For the situations described above, the court requires the motion to be brought within one year from the date the judgment was entered.
Hmmm let me see, no I don't see anything in this that would grant an appeal for Mr No Show....
The reason they submitted the abstract was in support of the proposition that it was more probative of the event (birth) than the COLB they submitted. And you would get the signature of the Abstracter in the case of most documents.
I don't see how that would be the case here.
This subject certainly draws out a lot of comment. I appreciate especially that frog in a pot and sourcery presented logical arguments unencumbered by condescension and ad hominem attacks.
In this discussion I have been solely addressing the subject of whether the Supreme Court's finding in Minor legally defines NBC. I am not staking out a strong position one way or another as to what the proper definition should be (though, admittedly, I lean slightly towards "born under U.S. jurisdiction"). And I am not taking a strong position on Obama's status other than strongly feeling that as a matter of policy it should be the responsibility of any candidate for office to present proof of their eligibility - which Obama has not done, in my opinion.
As best I can decipher Danae's point through the sarcasm, condescension and ad homimem attacks, it seems to be that anyone who knows the law and how it works can not possibly hold any other opinion than that Minor defines NBC. (If I have mistaken the point, perhaps Danae could restate it without the extraneous accouterments.)
Well, I can only respond by saying that the Court of Appeals of Indiana apparently, by Danae's definition, doesn't understand the law either. In Ankney and Kruse v. Governor of the State of Indiana (http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf) the opinion quotes the relevant passage from Minor and adds this comment: "Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen." Now Danae is certainly welcome to his opinion that the judges of the Indiana Court of Appeals are mistaken; but I have a hard time thinking they are not aware of the structure and rules of Supreme Court opinions.
By the way, in a footnote the Indiana court states: "Note that the Court in Minor contemplates only scenarios where both parents are either citizens or aliens, rather in the case of President Obama, whose mother was a U.S. citizen and father was a citizen of the United Kingdom." That was an argument I don't recall seeing before.
Sourcery makes a much more persuasive argument which, however leaves me with a question. If Minor's definition "... it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also" defines a set that cannot be added to or subtracted from, where does that place children born to U.S. diplomats serving abroad? Now, it is generally considered that the grounds of a U.S. Embassy are legally part of the U.S.; but what happens if the birth takes place outside the embassy proper? Are such children not "natural born citizens"? I tried to do some research, but was buried under all the hits generated by various articles on the status of the children of foreign diplomats born in the U.S. And in the process I have seen references that that President Obama, disregarding all precedent and law, has had the government extend citizenship to the children of foreign diplomats. That warrants further investigation.
Finally, frog in a pot and I seem to be in basic agreement about Minor, and I appreciate the citation of additional facts regarding the meaning of the term NBC to the drafters of the Constitution. But in researching, I found an alternative theory as to why NBC was inserted in the Constitution. I include it here not because I necessarily accept it, but simply as another data point.
From an article by Akhil Reed Amar in Legal Affaris, March-April 2004. (http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/March-April-2004/argument_amar_marpar04.msp)
"Why, then, did the generally pro-immigrant founders include a provision in the Constitution that would exclude immigrants from the presidency? The rule seems anti-egalitarian if one imagines a poor boy coming to America and rising through the political system by dint of his own sweat and virtue only to find himself barred at the top. But in 1787, the more plausible scenario was that a foreign earl or duke would cross the Atlantic with immense wealth and a vast retinue and use his European riches to buy friends and power on a scale that virtually no American could match. No such grandees had yet come to our shores, but it made sense to anticipate all the ways that European aristocracy might one day try to pervert American democracy.
Several months before the Constitution was drafted, one prominent American politician, Confederation Congress president Nathaniel Gorham, had apparently written to Prince Henry of Prussia, a brother of Frederick the Great, to inquire whether the prince might consider coming to the New World to serve as a constitutional monarch. Though few in 1787 knew about this feeler, the summer-long secret constitutional drafting sessions in Philadelphia did fuel widespread speculation that the delegates were working to fasten a monarchy upon America. One leading rumor was that the bishop of Osnaburgh, the second son of George III, would be invited to become America's king.
The natural-born clause clearly gave the lie to such rumors and thereby eased anxieties about foreign nobility."
---------------------- Thanks for the discussion!
There is only one conclusion: Obama and friends admit that - contrary to their public posturing over the last four years - there is a real problem with his constitutional eligibility for POTUS.
Fresh start would mean that Barry would have to argue on the merits...including introducing evidence.
I can hear the chickens screeching in the background!
Absolutely...these naysayers are looking for all kinds of hypothetical reasons IT COULD be appealed. The fact is they chose not to attend, GA wins, Obama loses.
Is he also going to appeal the CONTEMPT OF COURT CITATION for a no show??? LOL
I wonder........so the MSM films this, but keeps it dark. They hang on the the tapes for use in future reporting if this ever does blow up in obamas face.
You are correct.
They appear together on ballots and must qualify to be the “alternate”
I do not want to open the “kettle of fish” that follows with the fact the Vice President is not separately elected and therefore can not assume the office of a person fraudulently elected! No President Biden. That just added to the confusion.
Excellent question.
If one's theory is that "natural born citizen" is intended to the US analog of "subject born," then the answer would be yes. But I don't agree with the idea that NBC is, by original intent, to be analogous to "subject born."
If one's theory is that the 14th Amendment defines NBC, then the answer is no.
If one's theory is that the "law of nations" is the foundation of NBC, then the answer is probably yes.
But there is no US case law on the matter. Such children would definitely be citizens per the naturalization law, but none of them have ever needed to be ruled to be NBC by a court, even though they may be.
Shakespeare Henry the V: “Were all thy children kind and natural?”
Is the key to the meaning of natural born citizen. Who are the natural children?
None of your cites existed at the time the constitution was drafted and enacted.
If you read the cites, you would know they discuss in detail what was true BEFORE the Constitution, and using that to determine the original intent of the Founders.
NBC didn’t spring into being without any previous history. The states that ratified it had an idea what it meant - so did that come from a translation of Vattel made 10 years later? Even tho Vattel NEVER used the French form of the term? Or from the well known British term, natural born subject?
And remember, the French phrase ‘sujets naturel” was translated natural born subjects in British documents, and natural born citizen in American ones - which would support the idea that NBC = NBS.
Thank you for the excerpt by Akhil Reed Amar. His material tends to reinforce the concept that born in the U.S. was not in itself deemed sufficient by the founders for the office of the CinC. Once again, it seems clear to me the intent was to install only those with the highest level of allegiance and loyalty in the office of the CinC.
Being the offspring of a foreign monarch, even though born in the U.S. was precisely what was to be avoided. Significantly, any additional requirement of birthplace alone was but a small step up from the base citizenship required of senators and representatives, and would not have served the purpose of the founders.
Fortunately, the record both prior to and during the Convention is clear on the 1787 meaning of the term. It may be determinative to ask what is available in the record that would reasonably lead one to conclude the founders intended a different meaning? Certainly there are those today who would like to confuse the issue, but who was there in 1787 who argued that NBC was too restrictive?
With regard to Minor, Sourcery has done an exhaustive examination of both the term and the manner in which it was used by the court. The level of detail in that essay gives one pause to criticize. Nonetheless, it seems to me there is room to argue that while Minor identifies the citizenship of one born in country to two citizen parents as NBC - the decision can not be reasonably read as providing a conclusive definition of NBC.
That view may be incorrect, but if it is correct, then it seems wise to limit the use of Minor to its confirmation that the founders were using the well-known and customary 1787 meaning of the term.
Could it hurt to propose Minor as providing a conclusive definition of NBC? Perhaps...if it provides the court a reason to disagree.
Thank you for your response.
Money is Speech.
Yes, spend yours, waste yours, any way you wish.
However, I feel compelled, as a fiduciary duty to the Conservative cause, to protest your waste of time and resources on this crazy idea.
This is NOT the hill that conservatives should choose die upon!
You have the right to waste your own money, you have no right to promote this cause, unchallenged, just so that you can lead more innocent, uninformed sheep to the slaughter!
There is only one conclusion: Obama and friends admit that - contrary to their public posturing over the last four years - there is a real problem with his constitutional eligibility for POTUS.
There isn't any doubt that they are concerned about the issue. I will continue to stand on my estimate that out of various pockets with various different lawyers, they have spent in the $10mm range managing their exposure--a significant amount of money even in this league.
But until you find out what the real facts are, you don't know exactly what issues they think they are defending. They certainly have not "admitted" anything; they clearly have not yet admitted that their concern is eligibility.
His poll numbers are not very attractive for an incumbent President so their concern could equally well emanate from a political judgement about the impact of disclosure on his electability for other reasons.
At present, I take it as a given, that at a minimum, he was not born in Hawaii. So where he was born is a significant issue.
From what I have seen, not all of which is yet in the public record, I have concluded that Barack H. Obama was not his father; and it appears very unlikely that Stanley Dunham was his mother.
So to some extent, the current effort from our side of the table still needs to be focused on what the actual facts are because to the extent you think there is a legal issue involved, you cannot pursue it without knowing the facts.
The current fact pattern forcing the issue is the absence of proof he was born in Hawaii coupled with the fact that any independent trier of fact who looks at the birth document record concludes immediately that the documents are false.
But the best legal conclusion on those facts is going to be to strike him from the ballot on the grounds that he has not demonstrated he is eligible. Yes, the court could come up with a bunch of verbiage about reasons he might not be eligible but that would become the legal issue on appeal--if I were the judge, I would just say he hasn't proven he was eligible; I subpoenaed him to come in a show me and he stood me up; so I conclude based on the facts that I have seen a bunch of fraudulent documents originating with him and the fact that he won't tell me the real story that he is not eligible. Out he goes.
However if you think he was born in the USA and that he is eligible under the Natural Born Clause, the character of the defense they have conducted suggests that there is some significant issue that they view as eliminating him from the reelection race.
I speculate that there is a wide and increasing group in DC and New York that knows exactly what the issues and facts are. Whether or not that is true, there are at least two people who do know--Pelosi; and William Jefferson Clinton.
And looking at the gossip, you can also indulge in some informed speculation that both of them believe that whatever his problem is, it would result in his effective exclusion from candidacy.
So winning a battle to keep him off the Georgia primary ballot (and maybe thereby getting a leg up to exclude him on the final election ballot) is a positive development but it does not achieve your final objective of getting him out of office.
Illinois is not going to talk to you about it. Depending on the pleadings and procedural status (did the action address overall eligibility including the final election ballot), there may be an effective appeal, there may not be.
First, if your quotation CAN have other interpretations.
Second, your quotation clearly states that Citizenship rules can be changed and altered by Statute.
Third, your citation does not, in any way, say that a person who gains citizenship at birth is not, in any way, a Natural Born Citizen.
Before beginning wanted to ask how are your horses?
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.