Posted on 03/23/2012 5:55:59 PM PDT by Retired Chemist
Lou Dobbs and Bill O'Reilly were discussing Marco Rubio as a possible VP contender and O'Reilly said Rubio doesn't have enough experience to step in as President. Dobbs replied saying Obama didn't have any more experiencce when he became president and O'Reilly had to agree.
Wow. Very dishonest statement. The court stated that:
“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as CITIZENS children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. “ Read that passage very carefully, and you will see that the US Supreme Court clearly defined “natural-born citizen” by two independent remarks:
1. “…all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.” First, the Court states that these persons are “citizens”. But then it makes a second statement about this class -
2. “These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” This class of citizens are part of a class defined as “natural-born citizens”. They are citizens, natural-born. This distinguishes them from all other citizens. If this were not the case, it would have been sufficient for the Court to stop at the first statement concerning their citizenship.
But the Court didn’t stop there. Because the Court was avoiding the 14th Amendment, the Court went to the second step and defined this class to be different from all other citizens. This class did not require the 14th Amendment to be US citizens.
Whether persons born in the US to non-citizen parents were “citizens” was not a question before the Minor Court because Mrs. Minor was natural-born, whereas Wong Kim Ark was not. The determination of his citizenship required the 14th Amendment, whereas Mrs. Minor’s did not.
The killing of unarmed teen Trayvon Martin is tragic, but the investigation is being handled properly and the stand your ground law should not apply, according to presidential candidate Newt Gingrich. “I think Americans can recognize that while this is a tragedy — and it is a tragedy — that we’re going to relentlessly seek justice, and I think that’s the right thing to do,” Gingrich told CNN’s Piers Morgan. “I’m sure he’s going to present the evidence, not just the 911 call but the previous 911 calls and the fact that the police have been dealing with this guy, apparently, for a year. I have faith that the American system of justice will in fact work, and this is why you have a balance between the police and the district attorney.”
Speaking on Sean Hannity's radio show, Mr Gingrich said: 'What the president said, in a sense, is disgraceful. 'Is the president suggesting that if it had been a white who had been shot, that would be OK because it didn’t look like him? That’s just nonsense dividing this country up. 'When things go wrong to an American, it is sad for all Americans. Trying to turn it into a racial issue is fundamentally wrong. I really find it appalling.'
Why then.....did John Jay write these words to George Washington?
Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.
The losing factor of this whole debate is the stupid, phoney birth certificate. Who cares if it is legitimate or a forgery when the Constitution explicitly says you must be "Natural Born".....and every one alive in the eighteenth century knew exactly what the term meant. We waste time pursuing a silly argument (whether he was born in Kenya or Hawaii) when the Constitution tells us he's illegitimate based on his father's nationality.....alone!
Do you really not understand that the reason the words,
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
...........were included to allow these folks the opportunity to aspire the office?
Sigh! I hope Rush soon weighs in on this INSANITY but until then there are only TWO kinds of citizens: Natural Born and Naturalized. One or the OTHER. There is no in-between citizenship purgatory.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
The reason the 14th amendment does not apply to your argument is because of the clause I have underlined.
i.e. If a child is born to vacationing folks from Bulgaria while staying in an American hotel......that infant is not considered a "Citizen" because he (or his parents) are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They are still subject to the jurisdiction of Bulgaria and are not considered citizens.
For this same reason.... children born in the U.S. of Diplomat parents are also not considered citizens. They are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
I'm surprised people still try to use this silly argument about the 14th amendment.
"Rush?" Don't you mean "The Supreme Court of the United States?"
Someone here on vacation on a temporary travel visa is quite a bit different from a legal resident alien permanently residing in the US who has not yet obtained citizenship through naturalization. Santorum’s father for instance was a legal resident alien but not a naturalized citizen when Rick was born, yet he was not under the jurisdiction of Italy either (not to mention his service in the US military prior to his naturalization proved that he was no longer subject to the jurisdiction of Italy). Rick Santorum is a NBC and is eligible to hold the office of POTUS. So are Rubio and Romney and Jindal.
For this same reason.... children born in the U.S. of Diplomat parents are also not considered citizens. They are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
And yet American law says that a child born outside of the US to citizen parent(s) is considered a natural born citizen if certain conditions are met. The reason the children of foreign diplomats are not considered US citizens at birth is due to the unique legal status of foreign diplomats and that embassies are considered sovereign ground of that embassy’s country, not the country in which the embassy is located. This also means that the children of US diplomats serving abroad are not citizens of that country at birth but are US citizens and naturally born, i.e. a US embassy, no matter where it is located is considered to be sovereign ground of the United States.
The US citizenship of the parent or parents only comes into play in cases of a child born outside of the US. This means that someone born outside of the US can still be considered a citizen at birth (NBC) if both parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.; if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national and for those born in US possessions, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and finally; any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time).
Furthermore that means the child of parents neither of whom are US citizens and are merely working for a US embassy or US military base abroad are not considered US citizens at birth because the parental citizenship conditions for children born outside of the US are not met under Title 8 Section 1401 of the US Codes.
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html
I'm surprised people still try to use this silly argument about the 14th amendment.
I’m surprised people still use the silly argument that children born in the United States are something other than US and naturally born citizens at birth. There are only two types of citizens – those born in the US who are citizens at birth (NBC) and people who are born outside of the US who obtain citizenship through naturalization. A child born in the US (excepting a child born here to foreign diplomats) is not required to obtain “naturalization” because they don’t have to being that they are natural born citizens.
Dictum:
In United States legal terminology, a dictum (plural dicta) is a statement of opinion or belief considered authoritative though not binding, because of the authority of the person making it.
There are multiple subtypes of dicta, although due to their overlapping nature, legal practitioners in the U.S. colloquially use dicta to refer to any statement by a court that extends beyond the issue before the court. Dicta in this sense are not binding under the principle of stare decisis, but tend to have a strong persuasive effect, either by being in an authoritative decision, stated by an authoritative judge, or both. These subtypes include:
dictum proprium: A personal or individual dictum that is given by the judge who delivers an opinion but that is not necessarily concurred in by the whole court and is not essential to the disposition.
gratis dictum: an assertion that a person makes without being obligated to do so, or also a court's discussion of points or questions not raised by the record or its suggestion of rules not applicable in the case at bar.
judicial dictum: an opinion by a court on a question that is directly involved, briefed, and argued by counsel, and even passed on by the court, but that is not essential to the decision.
obiter dictum in Latin means "something said in passing" and is a comment made while delivering a judicial opinion, but it is unnecessary to the decision in the case and therefore not precedential (although it may be considered persuasive).
simplex dictum: an unproved or dogmatic statement.
In English law, a dictum is any statement made as part of a judgment of a court. Thus the term includes dicta merely in passing (referred to as obiter dicta) that are not a necessary part of the reason for the court's decision (referred to as the ratio decidendi). English lawyers do not, as a rule, categorise dicta more finely than into those that are obiter and those that are not.
Whether persons born in the US to non-citizen parents were “citizens” was not a question before the Minor Court because Mrs. Minor was natural-born, whereas Wong Kim Ark was not. The determination of his citizenship required the 14th Amendment, whereas Mrs. Minor’s did not.
MINOR V. HAPPERSETT IS BINDING PRECEDENT AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION OF A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
The dictum stated in Minor v Happersett regarding citizenship is and never was a binding opinion for the very fact you cut and pasted from the website - Whether persons born in the US to non-citizen parents were “citizens” was not a question before the Minor Court. Furthermore, Minor v Happersett was never overturned because the 19th Amendment made the ruling irrelevant in all regards.
The ramblings of Leo Donofrio; the sometimes lawyer, sometimes rock musician, sometimes professional poker player and fulltime web blogger is not impressive as to his understanding of Constitutional Law and that’s why the SCOTUS declined to hear his case – it had no legal merit as he presented it.
If the authors of the US Constitution and 14th Amendment intended there to be three classes of US citizenship instead of two, they would have stated so.
I just got home from a wedding and I missed out on a great conversation. Just wanted you and Godebart to know that you guys are the best, and even though you tried your best, I don’t think you got through to them. They are still waiting for God (Rush) to tell them what to believe. Not that I don’t have the utmost respect for Rush... I do... I just believe he has received orders not to go “there”... for his own good... if you know what I mean.
Dude, comeon....
He's been here LONGER than you.
Then........under the Constitution's strict requirements, Rick is not a "Natural Born Citizen". Neither is Barack, Marco or Bobby.
So are Rubio and Romney and Jindal.
It is my understanding that George Romney was a U.S. citizen at the time of the birth of Mitt. George's father never relinquished his citizenship (or did his mother) while living in Mexico and under the "Naturalization Act of 1790" children of U.S. citizens living abroad were still considered citizens......even if born on foreign soil. Since George Romney was a citizen..... Mitt Romney is considered a "Natural Born Citizen".
There are only two types of citizens – those born in the US who are citizens at birth (NBC) and people who are born outside of the US who obtain citizenship through naturalization.
Simply not true! Both terms ("Natural Born Citizen" and "Citizen") are used in the qualifying factors for the Presidency.....so it is quite obvious the framers considered them different terms. At the moment the Constitution was ratified there were not yet any folks who had been naturalized.......so right there that would indicate a minimum of three types of eventual citizen classifications.
This is from the Naturalization Act of 1790:
"That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the Constitution of the United States, which oath or affirmation such court shall administer; and the clerk of such court shall record such application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States. And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.
And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, "shall be considered" as natural born citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:"
Why do you suppose the different terms were in use in 1790? This law did not say that children born on foreign soil to American parents are "Natural Born Citizens". It says they should be "Considered" as such! The distinction we see in [Article II Section I] remained in usage through the passage of this first Naturalization Act by Congress a short time later.
But.....in the 14th Amendment we only see, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are "citizens" It does not say that such persons are considered as citizens or to be declared as citizens. It just says they are "Citizens".
You could be right.....and thanks for your kind words.
I really don't understand this confusion. When something is not clear you must go to the source. All indications point to the fact that the words "Natural Born Citizens" were in common usage during the eighteenth century....and beyond. I guess that's why the framers didn't see any need to expostulate on it. They assumed the meaning wouldn't be lost on future generations.
When I was in grade school we studied the Constitution and I remember the meaning of the words....."Natural Born Citizen" spoken by my teacher. She said......"That means both parents (mom and dad) were U.S. Citizens when you were born." We had one little girl in our class whose parents came from Eastern Europe. They were called "Displaced Persons" (circa 1953)..... but she was born in this country. I remember the teacher instructing everyone that she was indeed a U.S. Citizen......but because Mom and Dad weren't, she was not considered a "Natural Born Citizen". I think they (mom and dad) later became "Naturalized".
The government schools have not taught the Constitution to our children for probably 50 years now. Is it any wonder why people cannot grasp this simple concept? Do you think there may have been a purpose in them neglecting to do so?
For one thing, notice that the Naturalization Act of 1790 states that "That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years…
Except that subsequent law allowed citizenship rights and the right to vote to non-white people. It might come as a big surprise to you but both Clarence Thomas and Condoleeza Rice are not only citizens but also have the right to vote contrary to what the Naturalization Act of 1790 states and other laws in force at the time it was written. The statement “And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States” grants automatic citizenship to the minor children of naturalized citizens but makes no mention of whether those children were born here or not.
And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, "shall be considered" as natural born citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:"
One again I will attempt to explain to you that the provision of a person born outside of the United States to have a parent or parents with US citizenship only applies to persons born outside of the US. It does not apply to those born in the US.
But.....in the 14th Amendment we only see, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are "citizens" It does not say that such persons are considered as citizens or to be declared as citizens. It just says they are "Citizens".
OK. You have me totally confused. On one hand you are a saying the 14th says they are not citizens but OTOH, you are saying it doesn’t say that and they are?
Again the 14th states "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are "citizens". A person not born in the United States, unless they fall under the “beyond the sea” and to a parent or to parents with US citizenship require “naturalization” where as someone born in the United States does not require “naturalization”. Why? Because those born in the United States are already natural born citizens.
“The government schools have not taught the Constitution to our children for probably 50 years now. Is it any wonder why people cannot grasp this simple concept? Do you think there may have been a purpose in them neglecting to do so?”
_____________________________
I certainly do! I recently viewed a Youtube video from a Soviet dissident (KGB) who claimed that he was taught that they (Communists) could take over the US through our education system in a mere 20 years. I guess he was off by 30 years or so, but none the less they are persistent. I suppose they underestimated us. But honestly I don’t know how much more we can take.
I’ve been saying Rubio’s not experienced enough yet for a while now, so I’m glad O’Reilly echoed my sentiment, and bucked the wishes of the GOP elites who are pushing Rubio simply to try to get the Hispanic vote. The argument that Obama wasn’t experienced either is the WORST POSSIBLE argument I can imagine the Republicans making. We’re supposed to be using his deficiencies to distinguish ourselves from him, not to make excuses for ourselves. Besides, aren’t we arguing his term was a failure? So maybe we want to put up candidates who don’t have his same flaws.
Allen West strikes me as a much more reliable conservative to me. He sounds like someone who could fill the shoes of Cheney, Kemp, Gingrich, Reagan, etc. I don’t get that sense from Rubio at all. But I still wouldn’t nominate a candidate for V.P. who hasn’t at least served one term and won reelection to a second term in a major position like governor or senator, or been a house member who’s served at least 10 years and distinguished themselves in a leadership position. Private sector or military leadership experience of course could be its own form of qualifications, but those are my benchmarks for people who’ve been career politicians.
“Nobody in over 200 years of American history has questioned the meaning of natural born citizen, born in the USA, until you nuts recently.
The US Supreme Court agrees in numerous decisions, Minor v Happersett being the most clear/relevant, that Natural Born Citizen means....Born in country of Parents that are it’s citizens. This decision was handed down in the 1870’s.....
I suppose that this means that the USSC Justices are....”.... people like you who do not know what they are talking about making the rest of us look like nutters” in your opinion....sigh!
*************
“Since when did the Constitution mention a candidates parents in reference to eligibility.”
It did when is stated that only Natural Born Citizens are eligible.......or, like Billy Clinton, are you disputing the meaning of “is”?
18th century western jurists accepted/defined that term as meaning the concurrence of jus solis and jus sanquinis......birth to the soil and to citizen parents.......There is a rich legal history in this country supporting this definition that you seem to want to ignore.
*****************
“As for educating myself,”...... Like the public school system your “self education” seems to be sorely lacking.....
***********************
I guess thats all I’m gonna say, no use listening/reading to your ad hominum attacks and/or little slurs any longer.
ta ta sonny
Correct. At that time in our nation's history black men had not yet achieved citizenship and the Act was lengthening the required residence period to two years before one could apply for citizenship. The Act also granted (at birth) U.S. citizenship to foreign born children of U.S. citizens.
Except that subsequent law allowed citizenship rights and the right to vote to non-white people. It might come as a big surprise to you but both Clarence Thomas and Condoleeza Rice are not only citizens but also have the right to vote contrary to what the Naturalization Act of 1790 states and other laws in force at the time it was written. The statement “And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States” grants automatic citizenship to the minor children of naturalized citizens but makes no mention of whether those children were born here or not.
That's correct also. We fought a civil war to insure the black man's citizenship. Yes, I did hear (rolling my eyes) that Clarence and Condoleeza had both registered to vote. But....in 1790 these things were not yet on the table.
As far as children of naturalized citizens under the age of 21 being given the gift of citizenship....it does not call them "Natural Born Citizens". It calls them "Citizens". Whether they were born in the U.S. or not..... is a moot point. That's why the law only called them "Citizens" and not "Natural Born". Their parents were not citizens when they were born! Elementary!
Here is the exact wording from the Act itself: And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as "citizens" of the United States.
One again I will attempt to explain to you that the provision of a person born outside of the United States to have a parent or parents with US citizenship only applies to persons born outside of the US. It does not apply to those born in the US.
The provision of a person born outside the U.S. only applies to a person born outside the U.S.????????
What the 1790 Act did was to confer citizenship upon these folks and they should be considered as "Natural Born Citizens" because their parents were citizens. Prior to the Act they were not considered "Natural Born Citizens".
Here is the exact wording:
And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:
OK. You have me totally confused. On one hand you are a saying the 14th says they are not citizens but OTOH, you are saying it doesn’t say that and they are?
I'll go slow...........The 14th amendment had every opportunity to clarify what you wish was the case......and did not.
In contrast to the Naturalization Act of 1790 the 14th amendment no where refers to anyone as "Natural Born". It simply says this, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens".......period! It does not mention the word "Considered" nor does it say they are "Declared to be". It simply says they are "citizens"!
So....the question becomes, Is there a distinction between the words "Citizen" and "Natural Born Citizen"? This distinction indeed was present during the eighteenth century as you can see by the words in the Act of 1790.
Constitutional "Natural Born Citizen" is mentioned in the context of Presidential eligibility and will eventually mean whatever the Supreme Court wants it to mean. There is no Federal statute yet that defines this term. That's why we must go to the source of the term and the understanding of the populace of the era.
The purpose of the "Natural Born" clause in the Constitution was expressly designed to keep foreigners from the presidency. Birth on U.S. soil does not preclude foreign Nationality. A child born in this country to a non U.S. citizen is born with U.S. Citizenship (jus soli principle) and foreign citizenship (jus sanguinis princple) and although that child is born a U.S. citizen they are still considered a subject of a foreign country.
When Barack Obama was born (let's say in Hawaii) he was considered a British subject as well.....because his father was one and under the laws of Great Britain....they too considered him to be a British subject as Kenya was part of the Commonwealth. This is the reason the Constitution specifies "Natural Born" as the requirement for the office of the Presidency. The framers did not want anyone to assume the highest office in the land who would possibly have any foreign allegiances. This is why the clause states, "No person except a natural born Citizen, "or a Citizen" of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution"............ In other words.....you can be the child of a non citizen and attain the presidency because we realize that everyone alive at the signing of this document is the child of a non U.S. Citizen. But.....later on, after a couple of generations we don't want anyone running for that office who is not the child of U.S. Citizens......themselves! Elementary!
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.