Posted on 02/06/2012 4:32:19 PM PST by Para-Ord.45
Relevance to the topic at hand?
This cannot be done when all means of communicating with the public trace back to Liberal Democrat Strongholds where every employee is a member of a Union and comes from districts that are 80% Democrat. (New York and Los Angeles are the Major Media Centers in this nation, and they are completely under the control of Liberal Democrats. Contrary information is NOT PERMITTED to get through their control of the Airwaves. There is a video in the possession of the Los Angeles Times which would very likely have wrecked Obama's political aspirations had it gotten out to the public. (He's partying with known Anti-Israel Terrorist types.) These people (Whose JOB it is to properly inform the public) WILL NOT let the public hear the truth about this man. )
Till the means of communicating with the public can be wrested from the grip of our enemies, there is no real hope of informing the public to make better decisions.
And if the populace doesn’t know better (obviously didn’t in 2008), it’s our task to work within the law to turn him out of office by electing someone else, or even to amend the Constitution so it couldn’t happen again.
Or to force compliance with already existing laws, such as requiring an officer of each state's government to verify the credentials of someone running for office, which has YET to be done regarding this man. We don't even know for sure *IF* he was born in Hawaii. (Again, what other state will actually issue birth certificates to children not born there?)
It is not correct for us to claim the Constitution or the law says something it doesn’t.
I agree. So people should stop saying that 14th amendment citizenship is the SAME THING as "natural born citizen" status. Obviously the one preexisted the other, so it cannot be a derivative thereof.
That merely opens the way for the other side to do the same, until the Constitution has no meaning at all.
Dude, I have news for you. We are there NOW. Letting a dual national become President is an ABSOLUTE violation, as far as i'm concerned. Most of what the government does nowadays is completely unconstitutional. Today, the commerce clause means a farmer doesn't have a right to eat his own wheat. (U.S. Supreme Court decision in Wickard vs Filburn.) Women have a right to Hire Doctors to Kill their Children, But the Father must pay child support because he doesn't have that option, Cities can take away land that belongs to one person and give it to another (Kelo v New London) and Now, people exhibiting characteristics that were defined as a Mental Disease prior to 1973 (Homosexuality) have the "right" to "marry" and be in the military. Dude, we are far away from where the constitution ever permitted us to be.
Not a far cry from libs who claim the Founders never envisioned gangs slaughtering each other and bystanders with firearms, so it’s Ok to prohibit privately owned weapons. Is that what you want? I don’t.
It's funny you should mention that. Gangs slaughtering each other is a manifestation of OTHER violations of the U.S. Constitution. Our entire welfare system makes it possible for fathers to abandon their children, and leave the mothers receiving checks from the government (thereby feeding the future gang members.) which allows them to run the streets without any authoritative control until they develop the habit of ignoring all authority. Thank you Liberals and Lyndon Baines Johnson. Your Unconstitutional, Trillion dollar "War on Poverty" has been a great success! (At increasing the poor underclass and getting it to vote reliably Democrat.)
First, I apologize for saying you hadn't addressed the question - I read your other post and missed this one. However, you haven't really answered whether you believe in a "living Constitution."
Are you claiming that because the Founders believed citizenship followed the father, that we should still do so today?
Even disregarding that they felt "born on the soil" was sufficient (usual exceptions) for natural born citizenship, note that "citizenship follows the father" was NOT in the Constitution, so it can be and has been changed by our naturalization statutes. "Citizenship of the father only" certainly can't be held to apply to 1961, and trying that would get you laughed out of court.
Even the Laws of England, which your side partially quotes ad nauseum requires that the Parents must be in ACTUAL Obedience of the King. (Which I interpret as intending to live and reside within the Kings Obedience, i.e. become British.
The key point is that it is not your interpretation which counts. English courts have interpreted it, (as have American courts for "legiance" or jurisdiction) differently. And that is what controls.
You keep talking about "technicalities" which makes it appear you just want everything the way you want it, and don't realize that laws rest on some very technical definitions. I may not always like the law, I may not like the way it is interpreted or applied, but I recognize that laws are a foundation of our republic. One has to go through a process to change them, or those in power will change them as they desire. We see some of that now to my dismay, but even in these dark days, the law has some constraints on what 0bama can do, what his administration can do. Allow someone to declare it all "technalities" and see what you'd get - much worse.
Are you suggesting that anyone born in Hawaii should be excluded from the presidency as too "far outside the norm?" Some Hawaiian freepers might have something to say about that.
If I were choosing, I'd exclude parts of New York or California instead. :)
1. A child born to citizen parents on US soil, taken overseas after a few months, raised there until age 35, returns and runs for president at age 49. Same issues, Constitutionally eligible. Should the Constitution be changed for this situation? Did the Founders err?
I thought I addressed it. Perhaps not to the extent that you were interested, so I'll elaborate. No, the Constitution should not be changed for this situation. It was the intent of the founders that the citizenry itself should be the final arbiter on the loyalty\fitness question. Now before you assert that is what occurred in 2008, I will argue that the citizenry has long been misinformed about what is the correct Article II meaning of "natural born citizen", so in the presence of faulty information, the citizenry was unable to make an informed judgement. Most people believe that it is the job of the States to determine eligibility, and they cannot conceive that someone could get through the process without this having been accomplished and the individual accepted.
Little do they know that all 50 state's election officials not only failed to do their job, but they don't even understand correctly what their job is!
2. Are you one of those “living Constitution” people? One who wants to “modernize” without formal amendment because of modern changes - in this case more and faster global travel?
No, absolutely not. That is why I find it offensive for people to argue that the 14th amendment changed article II. A common principle of legal interpretation is that a subsequent law cannot amend or repeal a previous law unless it is explicitly stated that it do so.
My understanding is that the meaning of the Constitution is the exact same today as it was in 1787 unless expressly changed by amendment. There are a few areas where the details referenced might change, (such as the difference between flintlocks and Modern rifles, or Newspapers and Television transmitters) but the meaning and intent is still consistent with the original meaning and intent. (That the people have "arms" and "freedom of Speech and the Press." )
Are you claiming that because the Founders believed citizenship followed the father, that we should still do so today?
Congress passed a law explicitly addressing this issue in 1922. (If I remember correctly.) Through a piece of legislation called the "Cable act", Congress permitted women to have citizenship independent of their husbands. This ability was expanded even further with the passage of the Women's Citizenship act of 1934. I cite these two laws as the origin of much unintended mischief regarding the "natural born citizen" issue. Prior to 1922, there was no such thing as a child who was NOT a "natural born citizen". ALL children were born to parents (if married) of the same nationality, and therefore ALL children were "natural born."
It was only after the passage of a law which allowed women's citizenship to be different from that of their husbands was it possible for a child to be born of a father of one nationality and a mother of a different nationality, thereby creating a dual national dichotomy which never existed before. It was obviously NOT the intent of congress to tamper with Article II in the Cable Act, but (thanks to the widespread misunderstanding of the 14th amendment) that was the unintended consequence.
The original usage of the term "natural born citizens" had both parents being American citizens, with the wife being automatically derived from that of the Husband if it was previously different. I am not suggesting that the citizenship of a child must nowadays exclusively follow the citizenship of the father, I am saying that Unless both father and mother are American citizens, the child has a dual national taint, which was not possible prior to 1922, but is none the less a violation of the concept of a "natural citizen."
Even disregarding that they felt "born on the soil" was sufficient (usual exceptions) for natural born citizenship, note that "citizenship follows the father" was NOT in the Constitution, so it can be and has been changed by our naturalization statutes.
Definitions of terms such as "We the People," the "right to keep and bear arms" and "freedom of speech" are also not defined in the Constitution because they were considered part of the vernacular of the time, and needed no explicit definition. Very few terms ARE defined in the Constitution. (Treason being among them.)
I would point out that a citizen which is created by statute is NOT a "natural citizen". (Roger v Bellei)
"Citizenship of the father only" certainly can't be held to apply to 1961, and trying that would get you laughed out of court.
Nowadays, getting laughed out of court is no argument against what is the truth. It is an axiom of the conservative movement that the courts are not applying actual law, but are twisting it to fit liberal preferences. I constantly cite common examples of such. (Roe v Wade, Kelo v New London, Lawrence v Texas, Wickard vs Filburn) It is my desire to see the courts stormed and the Liberal Justices thrown from the ramparts. (figuratively speaking.) I, and others like me, have had our fill of tolerating glaring abuses from our Federal Court system, so arguing that a court disagrees with us is of little persuasive value.
Again, the salient point is not the citizenship of the father, it is that both mother AND father must be citizens for a child to have a natural allegiance to this nation.
The key point is that it is not your interpretation which counts. English courts have interpreted it, (as have American courts for "legiance" or jurisdiction) differently. And that is what controls.
So says the courts currently. This state of affairs is transitory. The courts reflect whatever powers are in the ascendency, not what the laws actually say.
You keep talking about "technicalities" which makes it appear you just want everything the way you want it, and don't realize that laws rest on some very technical definitions.
That someone can only barely pass the muster (and even THAT is still ambiguous, for we don't have absolute proof that he was actually BORN in Hawaii.) under the most extreme LIBERAL interpretation possible, is an example of what I mean when I say "technicality." It is a compliance with a very weak interpretation in violation of the intent and purpose of the law. (To Prevent foreign Influence.)
I may not always like the law, I may not like the way it is interpreted or applied, but I recognize that laws are a foundation of our republic. One has to go through a process to change them, or those in power will change them as they desire. We see some of that now to my dismay, but even in these dark days, the law has some constraints on what 0bama can do, what his administration can do. Allow someone to declare it all "technalities" and see what you'd get - much worse.
Interestingly enough, I have seen precious little constraint by law upon the "One." He routinely ignores the law, just as he has during his entire life. Fast and Furious, Solyandra, Inspector Generals, illegitimate recess appointments, graft, corruption, conflicts of interest, and every form of malfeasance which you can imagine are par for the course with this lawless individual. We are in uncharted territory with this guy. This is as close to a dictatorship as we are ever likely to come.
We have admitted Hawaii, and it is a state. (Notwithstanding the fact that it owes it's existence as a state to a deal made between Republicans and Democrats back in the 1950s when Republicans were trying to get Alaska admitted as a state, but the Democrats balked because Alaska was Republican. Statehood for Hawaii was traded to them (reliably Democrat) in exchange for Alaska) It possesses the same rights as other states, including the ability to grant citizenship under the 14th amendment.
It DOES however, have one unique disqualifier. Since it WILL issue birth certificates to people who were not actually BORN THERE, it should be required that any proof of birth must contain explicit indications that a child was actually born within the State as established by objective witnesses who are not members of the family.
If Hawaii will produce documents, and attest that they are ORIGINAL, and that they affirm an event which actually took place within the boundaries of their state, then I have no objections to Presidents who happen to be born in Hawaii.
Since they are unwilling to do such at present, I would suggest exclusion until proof is produced. (Yeah, like any election bureaucrats will ever do their job! :) )
If I were choosing, I'd exclude parts of New York or California instead. :)
If only we could. There are foreigners who would have more loyalty to this nation than would some residents of New York and California. :)
Dad was imprisoned and then exiled to England, where he lived out his life. His son was always considered a citizen.
As a citizen of a state he became a citizen of the United States with the adoption of the Constitution.
Oh, that's right...you're trying to equate State citizenship with US citizenship when the rules were still being ironed out. Never mind.
As a citizen of a state he became a citizen of the United States with the adoption of the Constitution.
So what was the need for all the posturing, hypothesizing and attempts at misdirection? You seem to have already known the answers to your questions.
@William Temple Franklin was born in 1760.
Born sixteen years before 1776.
This one has been argued to death. Since you are basing your current argument on "two citizen parents," I am not going to rehash, unless you are basing your argument on "birth certificate is fake," or "DOH perjured when they put Honolulu on the certificate rather than the actual place of birth in the case of late certificates issued to foreign adoptees."
I suspect what you mean is "If there was a presidential candidate from Hawaii who was a reliable Conservative, I have no objections." And for that, I'd agree with you.
Calvin's Case was 1608. You must have a very long view.
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.